Space to Destroy

In the tradition of Hannity-tier cuckservative race analysis––think Thomas Sowell, Please Stop Helping Us, a fat black preacher screaming “All . . . Lives . . . Matter!!,” etc.––comes Heather Mac Donald’s The War on Cops. Her book––released two weeks before Micah Johnson de-hyperbolized its title in Dallas––focuses on urban crime and the consequences of the BLM movement, while avoiding a certain black elephant in the room, human biodiversity. As such, it reads a little like a printed-out O’Reilly Factor monologue, edgy enough to trigger shitlibs conditioned to perceive “racist dog whistles” (which is to say a certain kind of innocuous, politically correct comment that sorta-kinda-almost reminds liberals of some banned idea) but thin gruel for the alt-right, and not really recommended. Mac Donald even has the temerity to repeatedly trot out the laughable canard that “the real cause of black violence [is] the breakdown of the family”––the implication being that black children would benefit by growing up under the tutelage of the unemployable nihilists that the writer (accurately) depicts as bloodthirsty destroyers of cities.

Despite the cucky viewpoint, the book pulls together a lot of oft-suppressed crime data that I’m glad blue-pilled types are being exposed to. Mac Donald focuses effectively on what she calls “The Ferguson Effect,” an auto-Shoah of color that began around the time a certain gentle giant was felled in St Louis. In the year after Michael Brown’s death, murders rose 61% in Minneapolis, 54% in Washington D.C., 72% in Milwaukee, and 83% in Nashville––these aren’t outliers; virtually every city with a large number of black citizens saw a similar spike in shootings and murders. Despite the bloodshed, arrests are way, way down. Mac Donald convincingly argues that policing has been relaxed due to the anxiety cops have of becoming the next Darren Wilson––and who would blame them? In a twist that should surprise no one save for enthusiasts of Charles Blow and Ta-Nehisi-Fo-Sheezy, it turns out that there is a major and unambiguous relationship between active, aggressive policing and relatively low––for dindu communities, at least––rates of violence.

Mac Donald seems to conclude––and in a sentiment that I think is representative of most what basic bitch conservatives believe––that the only real solution is the send the cops back in to accost, frisk, and arrest relatively wantonly. This is in stark opposition to the leftist/nigger/academic concept of acceptable urban policing, which is less an actual concept than an oddball fantasy akin to a superhero comic authored by bell hooks: Cops are to be invisible and omnipresent; they should respond to emergency calls with incredible speed, but otherwise have a minimal presence in the community. Rather than killing armed criminals, they should shoot guns out of people’s hands like some cartoon lawman. If a police officer is attacked, he should stand and fight like a man instead of using a weapon, but of course come out victorious––but not too victorious––and make the arrest. Police should interact with fewer black criminals, or at least randomly rough up and shoot more rich whiteys to even the numbers out. Politically radical community panels should oversee local police and be able to instantly fire any officer the panel suspects of being “racist.” Black ex-cons should be able to join the force so that they can patrol their own neighborhoods, as one can assume that this would make the police less corrupt and more competent. It also goes without saying we should not tolerate any police officer ever making a mistake that negatively affects a person of color, particularly if said mistake is caught on video––those are examples of “white supremacy,” even when no white people are involved.

This brings me to a question I’ve been eager to ask for a while: What does the alt-right want to see urban policing, and policing more generally, to look like?

Before I go any further, let me just say that I love the idea of the police: a sleek anti-degeneracy force, implicitly pro-white––what’s not to like? The imagery of black-clad stone-faced cops wearing aviators––something like an all-American Schutzstaffel––thwarting bumbling criminals, speeding down highways, rushing toward chaos, etc. is undeniably strong. To their enormous credit, the moral legitimacy of the law enforcement is questioned only by a coalition of the worst of our nation: (((media leftists))), mulatto academics, autistic ancaps, and inveterate ghetto criminals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, especially when the enemy of my enemy triggers the fuck out of my enemy. From an alt-right perspective, it’s a struggle to not reflexively support more policing, not less––especially where dindus are concerned.

That said, I think the right choice for our movement would be to push for a major withdrawal of police from disorderly, high-crime (read black) regions.

Policing is an investment. Because inner city policing is fueled by majority white tax dollars––56 percent of blacks pay no income tax––staffed disproportionately by white people, and designed to uphold old, white law, it can be said to be a white investment facilitating something like the benevolent white control of black America, albeit assisted by black collaboration. (It is no surprise that “Uncle Tom” is the insult most often directed at black police by black residents.) In our good-cop, bad-cop model of LARPing as black America’s parents, law enforcement takes up the role of stern father, while the mollycoddling welfare state represents something like a doting mother. (With obvious parallels to child rearing, the strict father is good for the soul of the child but hated by him. The coddling mother is loved by the child, as her behavior gradually erodes his attitude, work ethic, and ability to be independent.) This grotesque project of white paternalism––cuckold imperialism––has been relatively successful at saving black America from itself. As Heather Mac Donald has correctly stated, “no one is more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police.” White policing does save enormous numbers of black lives, but at what cost?

In the first episode of the six-part ESPN documentary O.J. Simpson: Made in America (a fantastic watch from an alt-right perspective) notoriously “racist” Los Angeles police chief Bill Parker tells an interviewer, “I think perhaps the best thing is to just pull the police out of the [black] area. I’ve offered to do that again and again, but you see how quick they are to come back and say you can’t do that.” The police were not pulled out of mostly black, high crime areas, and as the documentary chronicles, those regions of L.A. produced two riots––1965 and 1992, separated by years of low-boiling tension––both of which began when a dindu resisted arrest. The earlier Watts riots occurred because, in the words of an eyewitness, “the police in their idiocy responded with too much force, and not enough understanding.” The underlying problem, according to a Los Angeles Times reporter: “the police officers under Bill Parker would respond to a radio call. They would snatch the person who was causing trouble, put them in a car, take them out, and leave. So their interaction with the community was almost entirely based on apprehension. And that’s where the notion of an occupying army comes from.” In other words, being subject to the most basic functions of policing is an unacceptable proposition to black America.

For law enforcement to function, the populace must be able and willing to submit, emotionally and physically, to the directives of a police officer. There is a large contingent of black America that is constitutionally unable to submit to another individual’s authority. If the populace is not uniformly willing to submit to the authority of law enforcement, the public must accept that force will be used against those that resist, and that force, in its violent unpredictably, will often result in tragedy. The only alternative is anarchy.

Eulia Love––another figure covered in OJ Simpson: Made in America––was unable or unwilling to submit to the authority of the police. She was fatally shot on January 3, 1979 after threatening police officers with a knife. In the (((media’s))) coverage of the event, obsessive interest was paid to the initial reason police were at Eulia Love’s home––an unpaid gas bill. At a press conference, a black California State Assembly member declared that police “shot and killed Eulia Love at her home in a dispute over a twenty-two dollar and nine cent utility bill.” Obviously, Eulia Love was shot for one reason––attempting to injure or kill police officers. If there is another reason why Eulia Love was shot, it is because she is a member of an ethnic group bizarrely prone to acts of reflexive, self-destructive violence in response to being inconvenienced, frustrated, or offended by legitimate functions of law enforcement.

We now live in the era of nonstop Eulia Loves––dindus who after lemming out in the presence of police are elevated to media martyrs by a (((third column))) impersonating the fourth estate. Details such as whether the killing was justified––Michael Brown––or the result of a split-second misapprehension––Philando Castile––or in the death of Sandra Bland, even a police killing at all, are irrelevant. They’re all expressions of systemic racism designed to destroy black bodies or something, because reasons. Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Eric Garner––no need to “say dem names”; they’ve already become iconic American folk heroes. (For comparison can you, dear reader, name even one of the police officers assassinated in Dallas or Baton Rouge?) Even one questionable dindu death at the hands of law enforcement threatens total social upheaval. Consider that almost 5,000 individuals die in workplace accidents annually, and that medical mistakes take 250,000 lives every year. Wrongful police killings represents a very low number* comparatively, but getting it to zero is impossible. This is not a tenable situation.

We have an opportunity to withdrawal police from high crime areas. The safety of law enforcement can no longer be reasonably guaranteed in the inner cities, and much of black America wants police out. As the Ferguson Effect has demonstrated, blacks have the most to lose by being subject to less policing. Heather Mac Donald writes, “In the recent explosion of violent crime, the overwhelming majority of victims have been black.” Crime will rise, but without the narrative of racist white police maintaining white supremacy by arresting blacks, black violence against whites may actually go down. In the long term, whites will leave black communities––a soft separation that makes an eventual hard separation more possible.

Dindu Nuffin-ism isn’t simply a low IQ alibi. It is a total and all-encompassing worldview defined by bizarre, unearned hubris and an inability to seriously confront defects in the character of oneself or ones racial community––a kind of perfect inversion of the ethnomasochism whites have spent the last forty years perfecting. It is the reason why “mass incarceration” is a greater concern than crime itself. Or why they attribute the failure of their communities to “white supremacy” and events of the nineteenth century. Or why the horrifying behavior of their wayward, sociopathic sons is blamed on “economic divestment” and heavy-handed policing. To share a fate with such a people is a fatal curse.

We must start the disentanglement now.

*American police killed a total of 990 individuals in 2015. 782 were brandishing a deadly weapon. The vast majority of the 208 other deaths were deemed to be legitimate uses of lethal force.